Under proposed new fuel economy rules set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), automakers with powerful short-wheelbase models are going to feel some pain. The agency is considering a plan to create two sliding scales of efficiency for cars and trucks of different sizes. Automakers will be assigned fuel economy standards based on the "footprint" (short wheelbase = small footprint) of their vehicles, and the number of vehicles they sell. Companies like Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz, independent luxury brands with high-performance models, will be hit the hardest. Interestingly enough, Toyota, Chrysler, and General Motors, big players with diverse model lineups, won't feel as much pressure.
Conforming to the tough new proposed rules may be very expensive. As a result, some industry executives expect some automakers, such as Porsche, just to pay the fines--it's less costly than changing a model lineup. Regulators are under the gun to adopt a policy by April 1, 2009. In the meantime, the NHTSA will be taking public comments over the next two months. Time to send 'em a letter...
[Source: Autoweek]
James Garner recovering from mild stroke
VIDEO: God's ringtone is a V10-powered Audi R8
IIHS releases official results on the smart fortwo
Tragedy at LeMons: Send love and a little bit more
Officially Official: New Ferrari California exposed!
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen
Project Track Slut, Part One: Pick a weapon on the cheap
_thumbnail.jpg "Lamborghini Reventon unboxed in Las Vegas")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Zane @ Apr 28th 2008 7:06PM
The NHTSA can definitely expect a nasty letter from me.
TriShield @ Apr 28th 2008 7:06PM
Our government and tax dollars at work.
Americans get the government and will get the cars we deserve.
Derek @ Apr 28th 2008 7:53PM
Yes, but why do I have to suffer because the rest of the country is full of idiots?
CarbonBlack @ Apr 28th 2008 11:05PM
YEP, Our govt. gets to F*** us over every chance it gets.
We all need to look at what our govt is really supposed to do for us.
Temple @ Apr 28th 2008 7:08PM
BMW, Porsche and Mercedes have been paying CAFE fines for years. The largest Porsche paid was 2001 with a CAFE fine of $5 million. There has also been speculation that its control of VW could help Porsche meet CAFE numbers. regardless, its actually chump change for Porsche who has the highest profit margins in the industry.
http://wot.motortrend.com/6236504/auto_news/vw_purchase_may_help_porsches_cafe/index.html
2004m3driver @ Apr 28th 2008 7:45PM
As long as they don't pass the fines along to us customers. A Porsche is already a questionable luxury itself. Now buying a Porsche is just for the "heritage" and the looks.
Dan @ Apr 28th 2008 8:31PM
Of course they pass the fines on to their customers. You think they just take it out of some nebulous sourced corporate slush fund?
71cuda @ Apr 29th 2008 6:46AM
What do you think a gas guzzler tax is?
willi @ Apr 28th 2008 7:09PM
maybe Porsche is buying VW Shares because they are too proud to produce fuel efficient cars. If they merge with VW, they may be able to get away from CAFE rules without producing fuel efficient Porsche and just produce fuel efficient VWs.... Just my theory....
Richard @ Apr 28th 2008 7:22PM
Wow. I hope that the new Legacy has a longer wheelbase - else this could cause an unfortunate demise of the STi.
Tagg @ Apr 28th 2008 10:36PM
Bingo! I think the STI is dead regardless. You should be worried about the WRX instead because the it would be pretty hard to make a true STI and have it be efficient.
You could look at it this way too. If you really really like Subaru as a whole then maybe they'll make a few more products.
Richard @ Apr 28th 2008 10:42PM
Huh?
Tagg @ Apr 29th 2008 12:19PM
What don't you understand?
The STI would have to be cut in power so much that it would be an WRX so you wouldn't need a STI anymore.
Those cars are complete gas hogs especially for their size so they would either have to A.) take power out of the STI and WRX, B.) increase the Subaru lineup to include a bigger car that gets good fuel mileage. Or do a little of both.
I am agreeing with you in case you don't get understand. What I am saying is Subaru may have to mothball the STI for a while they maybe add a new model to their lineup to help offset the STI's poor mileage.
Richard @ Apr 29th 2008 12:28PM
Well, if the taxation formula is - um - wheelbase-based, it seems that Subaru could reduce the exposure to the STi by increasing the wheelbase of the next gen Legacy/ Outback.
Hopefully the corporate "mpg per inches" (that's funny) will be high enough that penalty STi tax - ergo, price is not too highly impacted.
I drive a Legacy now but, frankly, want the utilitarian flexibility of the STi's hatch and fold-down seats.
JohnKiddle @ Apr 28th 2008 7:26PM
A better idea would be to transfer the concept of "carbon credits" over to federal mileage standards, so that smaller automakers can pay the larger automakers to reduce their emissions/increase mileage on their behalf. Because the large automakers have scale, Toyota can increase the mileage of their Corollas by a small margin to offset the ridiculously low mileage of Porsche's GT3.
CarbonBlack @ Apr 29th 2008 2:01AM
I agree,
On a separate note,
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548
-Autoblog green, enjoy
Bennet Pullen @ Apr 28th 2008 7:29PM
I see two big problems with this rule...
One, why should larger vehicles be given a break on fuel economy standards? That is just going to make automakers even less likely to make truly fuel efficient vehicles because they can just make comparably fuel efficient vehicles. That seems to go against the whole idea of CAFE to me because a company that makes large vehicles gets a pass.
Two, why is footprint based on wheelbase/track width rather than some actually meaningful measure of size like overall length/width, weight or interior volume? I think regulations like this are going to make some for some crazy looking cars and like the article mentions hurt designs that naturally have short wheelbases.
Carlos @ Apr 28th 2008 7:29PM
Have they learned nothing? SUVs didn't become popular just because of consumer demand... CAFE made them work better for automakers.
I agree with CAFE's ultimate goal, but it's only going to work if they give companies a reason to build (and sell) more small vehicles. That means forcing them to try to satisfy a wider market - sports cars buyers included - with small or midsized vehicles. That, in turn, means being harsher on big ones than little ones.
Whitie @ Apr 28th 2008 8:31PM
"I agree with CAFE's ultimate goal, but it's only going to work if they give companies a reason to build (and sell) more small vehicles. That means forcing them to try to satisfy a wider market".
This is ridiculous. How about the idiots in our government work to affect demand rather than supply. Manufacturers should be allowed to meet, not try to manipulate, demand. Europe charges annual license fees based on engine displacement (liters), plus you get taxed hard for automatic transmissions. Makes more sense to me.
Robert @ Apr 28th 2008 8:39PM
If they're going to base it on anything base it on the number of seats. Because so many vehicles are single occupant driven start with a baseline that all vehicles should meet and then give a small break for each additional seat. An Excursion gets better per person MPG if every seat is filled compared to a single occupant Prius, but how often does this happen.
As stated by Mr. Harley this policy will encourage an increase in mass and also drag as a wider track will increase frontal area. From a purely "green" perspective damage to small volume manufacturers will not be as important as counterproductive trend to up size all vehicles.